Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Nakimayak.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the amendment. Like previous speakers, Mr. Chair, I am just going by examples here. The Inuvialuit Game Council and other parts of Inuvialuit have agreements with the Government of the Northwest Territories in our government-to-government relations. Also, there are impact benefit agreements that are confidential and should remain confidential. Earlier on on this bill, there is talk about a public registry. Things like that should remain confidential for Indigenous groups to negotiate with the Government of the Northwest Territories. I am looking at this. I think it's the fifth line down, and it says, what gets me:
"The Minister may enter into one or more agreements with Indigenous governments or organizations in the Northwest Territories and with relevant renewable resource boards and land use planning boards or bodies, as to how the Commissioner in Executive Council will engage with those parties in exercising the regulation-making powers under this section."
Mr. Chair, Indigenous governments are making regulations with the government. We cannot go all the way. We know that. There is a time and point where the governments and Indigenous governments must lash off so that we can continue making regulations and law, and this is where we sit today.
This has potential to give less power to those Indigenous governments that are advocating not just here in our country but around the globe on wildlife, on ivory, on seal. This has a possibility to impact our rights as Indigenous people to advocate for what we believe in and to protect our way of life. I think this is far too much, and it does not give any room for the governments to move. When there are no margins and we are restricted, it could possibly have a negative impacts for us as we sit around the table at the international maritime organization looking at regulations on marine shipping, on heavy fuel oils, on plastics and that.
So I think we need to respect what's in the document. For those reasons, Mr. Chair, I am not going to support this amendment. Thank you.
To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I certainly appreciate the mover's intentions, and one might think that by me supporting the previous amendment that the presenter put forward that not supporting this one might seem odd, but the previous one was clearly a case where I felt that the Minister would give notice about a change in regulation, allow the opportunity to hear from the governments on that regulation, and then may consider it if he or she so wishes.
In this instance, as the presenter has suggested, really this gives the Minister another layer of power if he shall so choose. However, the concern is, with me, on "the Minister may enter into one or more agreements" sets a particular expectation from any reader of this particular law to say that they will expect that the Minister will go down this road. I feel that that might even put some possible undue pressure on the Minister if that were to happen.
This act is layered throughout the whole entire act with the opportunity for engagement, and I would argue or suggest that the act in its entirety in fact is about the coming together of governments in the interest of developing protected areas. So, while I appreciate that a number of Indigenous governments and stakeholders identified the need to be further involved in regulation-making and I fully appreciate that, I still think that this act unto itself will allow for numerous opportunities for the government to be engaged, and they will certainly let it be known what their thoughts and feelings are on how regulations should pan out at the opportune times of when they consult as it relates to this act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. To the motion. I will allow the mover to close debate. Mr. Testart, to the motion.
If I could just ask a point of clarification of our law clerk.
Of course. You don't need to ask me. If you can ask it, you can just go ahead and ask it. Mr. Testart.
Mr. Law Clerk, looking at the full amendment and the effects it would have in the legislation, does this in any way restrict section 35 rights of Indigenous peoples, or impact the beneficiaries land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is quite a large question. What I can say is that the intent of the wording here is just that, which is that the Minister may or may not enter into agreements with Indigenous governments. As to how the Commissioner and the Executive Council will engage with those parties, "engage" is obviously a different word than "consult." I believe that was likely intentional by the drafter so as not to import the baggage. I don't mean that pejoratively, but there is a large connotation that comes along with the word "consult." With that, that answers your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Yes, yes, thank you. Thank you to my colleague who just handed me a piece of paper. Mr. Chair, again, we've had a spirited debate around this. Some comments are based on what correspondence was received by committee members during the committee review, some have been based on concerns raised around this, and some have been based on information that's not represented in this amendment.
I want to address the Minister's comments. The Minister said that we have these arrangements and these agreements, or these relationships in place, and we don't need to legislate those; and yet, we have an intergovernmental council that is legislated. An intergovernmental agreement is a legal agreement that council would set up to manage the relationship between devolution partners. There's no real need for a new body according to that logic. We have bilaterals. We've heard members from land claim organizations speak to the strong bilateral relationships between their organizations and the GNWT, and yet, we have an intergovernmental council. We chose to do something new. This legislation is an opportunity to do new things as well.
This is something, I'm not making this up. It's not the honourable Member for Frame Lake writing a dissenting opinion and deciding, let's go our own way. We presented the supporting evidence from the committee hearings. We presented the supporting evidence that we heard directly from Indigenous people. This was something that was asked for, and I think the previous amendment was a stronger one than this, but on this one, at the very least, again, it creates a clear legal path for how we want to move forward on co-drafting. Whatever process emerges from the intergovernmental council and the bilateral conversations that occur, great. Come up with something everyone can agree with, and then move forward with this new power.
The Members who have raised the concern that this creates an anticipation that the Minister will use this power, well, the Minister is creating that expectation, and his colleagues in Cabinet are creating that expectation, by going out and putting out terms of references. This expectation already exists. It started as soon as the technical working group was assembled, and the expectation has been repeated time and time again in written submissions, in public appearances, and that's been collected in committee's report. The submissions we received from the public are some 200 pages. This bill had a great deal of public interest, and more importantly, a great deal of interaction of both the government who drafted the bill, and Indigenous partner governments, and the committee who reviewed the bill and Indigenous partner governments. Every aspect of this institution, its executive branch, its legislative branch, has been working in partnership in respective functions on Bill 38. These are just improvements we found, and I feel very strongly that we have been given very clear indication that something like this is exactly what the expectations are that are out there. Yes, there can be another process that's identified, and perhaps that will be superior, but it would have been nice to know that going ahead. It would have been nice knowing more information about the co-drafting process. I commented a number of times that I had learned more in three weeks than I had in three years on co-drafting because most of that process was almost a tightly guarded secret.
It is nice to see this process play out, but, with incomplete information on how we're going forward, we're doing our best to put the aspirations of our partner governments into legislation.
The Member has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour, please rise.
The Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu, the Member for Yellowknife North.
All those abstaining, please rise. The results of the recorded vote are: five in favour, 11 opposed, zero abstentions. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Clause 98. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Clauses 99 to 101. Does committee agree? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have some questions with regard to the coming into force date of this legislation. I would like to know whether it's the intention of the Minister to bring this bill into force without delay? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our intention is for the act to come into force at the earliest opportunity. Implementing this act, needless to say, is a high priority for the government of the Northwest Territories and the people who are affected by it. The Department of ENR is actively working with Indigenous governments and organizations, and have advanced three candidate areas under the act: the Dinaga Wek'ehodi Wek'eezhii, Thaidene Nene, and Tu'eyeta west of Fort Good Hope in the Sahtu region. Bringing the act in force is a critical step towards establishing these candidate areas.
Section 101 of Bill 38 states that the act or any provision of the act comes into force on the day to be fixed by order of the Commissioner, and it is our intent to bring the act into force at the earliest opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just so I understand this completely, is the Minister of the opinion or the view that any specific regulations are required to bring this act into force? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Jenkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, there will be some work, minor regulatory work required for general regulations on forms and for laboratories, designation of laboratories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Does the department have any idea how long that regulation is going to require for forms and laboratories? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. Jenkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our intent is that we would have these regulations come into force within the life of this Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I understand that there are forms prescribed in here, or the ability to prescribe forms, largely around the inspection, sort of warden functions and labs. That's where they'd be designated as well. Would there be the opportunity, then, to move forward with bringing into force other sections of the act immediately upon it or shortly after assent? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Jenkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we feel that there is the ability to bring in sections very quickly in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Can I just get it clarified by the Minister then: so the intention is to bring all the other parts or sections of the act into force other than those that require forms or labs, and that that will happen shortly after assent? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Jenkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we feel that we could bring all the provisions of the act. If there are any that are relevant to the statement of forms or designation laboratories that couldn't be bringing right away, we would have to wait until the work is done, but otherwise we would like to bring it into force very quickly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. At the risk of driving everybody crazy, can the Minister repeat that commitment? I just want to get it very clear on the record because there is a lot of interest in moving forward, particularly with Thaidene Nene. I had heard that there might be federal ministers coming up to make a formal launch in July around the federal part of that, so can the Minister commit that all the other sections of the act are going to be brought into forces as soon as possible? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister. Mr. Jenkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, it is our intent to bring this in very quickly, as the Minister stated. We are actively working on Dinaga Wek'ehodi, TDN, and Tu'eyeta in the Sahtu region. We need to bring this action into force to be able to move forward with the establishment agreements and those in to establish those areas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly. Nothing further from Mr. O'Reilly. Clauses 99 to 101. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Committee, please turn to page 8. We will have a look at the preamble. To the preamble. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We will return to the bill number and title. Bill 38, Protected Areas Act. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Does committee agree that Bill 38, Protected Areas Act, is now ready for a third reading?
Agreed.
